Talk:Sairat

Box office

We do not need a daily count of box office takings on this page. The box office section was ridiculous. I've reverted it back to it's opening weekend and the relevant milestones (best performing Marathi film and 50Cr mark), but weekly and daily totals should not be included. Ani 007d, I'm looking at you. Worm^TT(talk) 10:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I have created a page protection request to avoid IP edits for bloating up the count. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Ya sure Worm ,thanks for the info actually didnt know that.I was just reverting back to correct information due to constant changes in collection without sources.Ani 007d

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2016

Sairat Box office collection 86 crores Source: http://www.galaxyreporter.com/2016/05/sairat-box-office-collections-and-earnings-till-date-sairat-31-days-collections.html 27.58.19.100 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

We will not be updating daily collection. Lets update once a week. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2016

Mayur787 (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC) http://www.galaxyreporter.com/2016/05/sairat-box-office-collection-rinku-rajguru-akash-thosar-sairat-movie-collections-till-date-32-days-earnings.html

We will not be updating daily collection. Lets update once a week. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

88 Crs

http://www.galaxyreporter.com/2016/05/sairat-box-office-collection-rinku-rajguru-akash-thosar-sairat-movie-collections-till-date-32-days-earnings.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayur787 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

We will not be updating daily collection. Lets update once a week. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

More importantly than the unilateral declaration that we will not be updating daily collection (which is not observed across the film editing community) is the matter of sourcing. We will not accept any source that doesn't meet our reliable sourcing guidelines. We are not interested in what blogs have to say, because anyone can start a blog and proclaim himself an expert. We are only interested in what mainstream publications with established reputations for fact-checking have to say about any subject. Galaxyreporter.com is a blog, and thus, is insufficient as a source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Minor misspells

Line 9 and 10 in the cast section have been misspelled. Correction is needed when article is editable.

• Suresh Vishwakarma as Archi's Father (Tatya)
• Geeta Chavan as Archi's Mother

ManSam 07:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manas Sambhus (talk • contribs)

 Done - Vivvt (Talk) 07:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Significant reversion

In this edit I had to revert a significant number of changes. 1) Thenewsrecorder.com looks like a blog to me. We don't use blogs or other user-generated content as references per WP:UGC. 2) us.blastingnews.com looks like a blog to me. See #1. 3) Msp62 added a giant block of critical response content, but it's not written in proper encyclopedic tone (grammar/spelling/typographical issues) and it presents opinions as facts. Quotations need to be presented as quotations, and we must be presenting the information from a neutral point of view and shouldn't be reliant solely on "this film was great" quotations. I don't have time to repair this section and leaving improperly quoted quotations presents copyright violation concerns. It was also mismarked as a minor change, which is further problematic. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sairat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Veera Narayana (talk · contribs) 19:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I shall review this nomination and am expecting the nominator to address the concerns that would arise, if any. Regards, Veera Narayana 19:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Manjule repeats twice in the first sentence of the lead.
• Infobox shows three production houses, but we see only two in the lead. Also, the cinematographer's full name was not written in the lead.
• "was director of photography" or "was the director of photography"?
• written and wrote in the same sentence isn't advisable.
• "Headstrong and also academically proficient, she enjoys driving a tractor or a Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle." -- Is the bike bit that important from an encyclopaedia POV?
• "Archi's father forces the police to register a false complaint that Archi was gang-raped by Parshya and his friends." -- You have already established that Tatya is Archi's father. Why not use his name directly?
• "A woman from a nearby slum, Suman Akka (who lives with her young son, Sanket) intervenes and saves Archi and Parshya from certain tragedy." -- Are the brackets that necessary?
• "After the phone call, Archi's brother Prince and his relatives arrive with gifts from her mother in an apparent reconciliation." -- Again, it has been established earlier that Prince is Archi's brother. Why not use Prince directly?
• "The young Aakash returns with the neighbour (who leaves him at his doorstep) and sees his parents on the floor, bloody and hacked to death." -- It is already known that Aakash is young, so need not mention the same thing again. And, are the brackets necessary?

More later... Veera Narayana 09:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

All done. The brackets were included during the GOCE copyedit I guess. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• "He had begun the story of Sairat in 2009..." -- writing? working on?
• "While editing it, he remembered the story of Sairat" -- remembered might not be the right word to fit in there.
• "Manjule realised that many people did not see Fandry..." -- To the best of my knowledge, plays are seen and films are watched.
• "Tanaji Galgunde and Arbaz Shaikh played supporting roles in the film, and Manjule made a cameo appearance as a cricket commentator." -- This line belongs to the next section ideally.
• Why go for a single, long paragraph? Can't we break it into at least two for an easier read?
• Rajguru repeats almost in every line in the first paragraph of the filming section.
• "Twenty-year-old graduate student Akash Thosar was cast as Prashant Kale after he met Manjule at a railway station and showed him some of his photos. Manjule showed them to Nagraj; Thosar was summoned for auditions and eventually selected for the role of a lower-caste fisherman's son." -- Who was that guy whom Thosar met at the railway station?
• "portions were shot in Hyderabad" -- few portions? large portions? substantial portions?
• "It took nearly 70 days" -- to wrap the principal photography, right? Some can assume that the entire production process (including post-production) took 70 days to complete. Please be clear.
• Manjule said, "There are lots of locations, a huge number of characters and many complicated crowd scenes". Was it a reason Manjule cites for the delay? If it remains implicit, it would seem vague for the way the sentences flow.
• "According the director" -- to the director. And that line actually suits to be a part of the writing process i.e. the previous section.
• Sudhakar Reddy needs to be credited with his full name, as provided in the infobox.
• "On 21 December 2015, two one-minute trailers were released. The film's official poster was released on 2 April, 2016" -- this content is advised against by WP:FILMMARKETING
• "The film was also screened at the India Habitat Centre Film Festival, the Brahmaputra Valley Film Festival, the International Film Festival of India and the Indian Film Festival in The Hague." -- Just to clarify, all of these were post release?
• "In April 2016, Manjule filed a complaint with the Mumbai Police after the film was leaked online two days before its release." -- Two things. Unless otherwise postponed to another month, mentioning April 2016 is useless. Second, it is better you mention that we are talking about the theatrical release.

More later... Veera Narayana 09:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

All done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Mihir Bhanage already introduced in the soundtrack section. You need not do the same again wholly in the reception section.
• Who is Divya Unni? I mean, for which newspaper or website has she reviewed the film?
• Who is Shweta Parande? See, i get that they are writing for some newspaper or website, don't think i am being cynical. I just want to say that they have not those critics whose name is enough to cite, like a Raja Sen or Baradwaj Rangan, whose articles at Wikipedia are notable.

If that's the case, then the article will only have a handful of reviews because most critics don't have their own WP article.

I am saying that the newspaper or the source for whom these critics are reviewing the film must be mentioned.

• "Karmala, where the film was made, was visited by nearly 20,000 tourists within three weeks of its release." -- made? made is not the right word. BTW, is it necessary to link Karmala here? We have already mentioned it as a Taluk in the development section.
• "His parents approved his marriage after seeing Sairat" -- watching
• Now coming to the images, all seem fine, but i have an issue with the Solapur image. The location, Kambar Talav, was any scene filmed there? If yes, an appropriate caption would be "Kambar Talav, one of the locations in Solapur, where Sairat was shot."

The film was shot in Solapur. The image is one of the lake's situated in Solapur. I couldn't find a better image of Solapur than this one.

• Referencing seems fine.

Well, at the end of the assessment, i find Sairat worthy enough to be a GA. I expect the nominator to answer the remaining queries, following which i might take the final decision regarding the article's promotion. Yours truly, Veera Narayana 15:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for conducting the review, I have hopefully resolved them all. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.

   Pass or Fail:

A note of thanks for the valuable contribution you have just made. Regards, Veera Narayana 17:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)